Artillery and Unit Death

[Spook42]

Originally posted by SpencerH

As you say, allowing artillery to kill units (very occasionally) would be a small change (and less of a pain than galleys sinking battleships) but lets not go back to CIV2 where the most effective "killing" unit was the howitzer.

I never played Civ2, but I accept your outlook that one should avoid making overpowered units (like killer howitzers) where it SEEMS inconsistent to do so.

[The Andy-Man]

This was one of the many mistakes in Vietnam. The U.S. applied huge amounts of bombardment, but could never destroy the ability of the enemy to reorganize. Under bombardment, foot soldiers just hunker down. They hide.

erm, again i am repeating myself, I SAID IN OPEN TERRAIN!!!!!

the above examples where all in defensive terrain, a unit cant hide in the open as easy as in a forrest of a jungle. so for grassland/plains and possible(very slight chance)tundra and desert and unit MIGHT get killed.

as for Civ2, a vet artillery and hopwitzer were way to powerful i agree, but there power as a bombardment unit in Civ3 may be more realistic, because heavy heavy bombardment by a modern military unit will do a decent amount of damage, if not to units (look at the fileds and villiages in WW1, swampland even today).

[Zachriel]

I could see having artillery kill armored units in the open. That would help balance the overpowering tanks during the blitz era. Bombers too, perhaps.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Whether a foot unit could be "killed" by artillery would depend on the size and make-up of the unit, how much artillery is fired and for how long, and what terrain or defenses were available for defensive cover. If you consider CIV3 units as divisions of 10-20,000 personel, then there is no way for artillery to kill it. Even smaller units such as regiments or battalions would could not be wiped out except possibly by extremely heavy artillery fire that doesnt happen for logistical reasons. . .

A unit does not have to be wiped out to the last man to be "destroyed". It can be destroyed as a combat effective unit even with many survivors especially if its morale breaks.

But unit destruction by artillery or air attacks should be less common than in Civ II. But what is unforgiveable about Civ III is rhe inability of bombers to sink any warship. Absurd.

[SpencerH]

A unit does not have to be wiped out to the last man to be "destroyed". It can be destroyed as a combat effective unit even with many survivors especially if its morale breaks.

I agree, except for the Iraqi republican guard (which would have been destroyed by CIV3 standards), I'm not aware of any division size unit or larger being wiped out as a combat effective unit solely by artillery.

Anyway, as has been pointed out CIV3 is a game. The target units could be battalions, the arty units could represent corps ARTY resources with modern munitions. If a new patch allows artillery to kill other units I'll try it. If I dont like it, I'll change it back (if I can).

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
A unit does not have to be wiped out to the last man to be "destroyed". It can be destroyed as a combat effective unit even with many survivors especially if its morale breaks.

That is right. A unit is defined by its cohesion. Once cohesion is permanently lost, the unit is destroyed. So a large number of men fleeing in panic is a destroyed unit. And a small number of men who refuse to run represent a unit which has yet to be destroyed. That is exactly why bombard is not normally capable of destroying infantry. You can kill lots of soldiers, but the command structure remains.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I agree, except for the Iraqi republican guard (which would have been destroyed by CIV3 standards), I'm not aware of any division size unit or larger being wiped out as a combat effective unit solely by artillery.

The Allies had plenty of ground troops in Iraq to force the republican guard out into the open where they could be destroyed. There were plenty of infantry and armor encounters during the battle, as well a generous bombard.

One more thing. The republican guard was not destroyed. They were allowed to escape and regroup.

[SpencerH]

There were plenty of infantry and armor encounters during the battle, as well a generous bombard.

Having B52's and other aircraft bomb you continously for 30ish days is certainly a "generous bombard". The ground force encounters came afterward.

The republican guard was not destroyed. They were allowed to escape and regroup.

Maybe I wasnt clear, I know they weren't destroyed by that bombardment. That's the point! The example of the republican guard is why bombardment shouldnt kill units in CIV3.

I think the rules should be changed so that in CIV3 units that have been bombarded down to 1HP should retreat or be eliminated if they cant. Units that have lost (some variable number of) hit points by bombardment shouldn't be able to move. I guess a simplification of these rules would be that units that have taken HP losses by any means that turn should not be able to move the next turn.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I think the rules should be changed so that in CIV3 units that have been bombarded down to 1HP should retreat or be eliminated if they cant. Units that have lost (some variable number of) hit points by bombardment shouldn't be able to move. I guess a simplification of these rules would be that units that have taken HP losses by any means that turn should not be able to move the next turn.

That would add a little tactical feel to the encounters, as would allowing the destruction of armor units by bombard.

(Keeping in mind that Civ3 is a strategy game played over years and hundreds of miles, yet the genius of the game engine has always been able to also create, to a limited degree, a tactical feel. These suggestions, while not essential, would probably be fun additions to the game.)

While you're at it, make it so that armor is not so effective in rough terrain, and archers more effective in rough terrain.

[SpencerH]

While you're at it, make it so that armor is not so effective in rough terrain, and archers more effective in rough terrain.

Yes, I think we should be able to include (and edit) combat modifiers. For example, pikemen should have a defense advantage against horse units but a disadvantage against archers and bombard units. It was there in civ2, where did it go?

[The Andy-Man]

but civ2's combat was pefect. pikemen are just spearman with bigger spears, that rendered cavalry obsolete for a long while.

[Thrawn05]

Why should I spend shields on a unit that can't kill?

[Thrawn05]

Why should I spend shields on a unit that can't kill?

Just put a checkmark box in the editor that says this unit can kill with bombardment (default is unchecked).

End of story, that will make everyone happy. Next topic....


(Sorry about that, the server was busy I tried to post a couple of times, I guess it posted twice. Feel free to delete my post above Ming (it seems I can't))

[SpencerH]

pikemen are just spearman with bigger spears, that rendered cavalry obsolete for a long while.

I would say that the pikeman unit (and hoplite) incorporates the concept of fighting in formations while spearman are more of a loose "gaggle".

Just put a checkmark box in the editor that says this unit can kill with bombardment (default is unchecked).

End of story, that will make everyone happy. Next topic....

That wont make me happy. I'm hoping for a little more complexity than that.

[Akaoz]